Language Notes Continued 12-19-08

Problems with Translation
10. Untranslatable Words are words that are so succinct that they cannot be translated from one language to another, such as "huzeluch" (sp?) which is most closely translated into English as "sitting in a small room with a bunch of Dutchmen drinking coffee and smoking cigars" or something like that.

11. Idioms are colloquial phrases that cannot really be translated literally, word-for-word, into another language without losing the meaning, such as the foreign idiom which in English says "You are invited to take advantage of the chambermaid" or expressions such as "off his rocker".

12. Labels are group names we assign to a collection of objects/people, etc. instead of naming each one individually, which would be very tiring and confusing. Instead of calling each table or grain of sand a specific name, we simply say "tables" or "sand".

13. Stereotypes are a common effect of labeling, when a group of (usually) people are given a label and then associations that accompany that label and every person inside it, such as "IB students are smart."

14. Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is the theory (hypothesis) that how you use your language determines how you see your world, such as Americans' use of nouns before verbs which empowers and emphasizes the noun, person, or 'do-er' so that we see ourselves as more important.

Emotionally Laden Language
15. Emotive Meaning is when certain words have emotions connected to them, such as "gassy" which provokes disgust, so we say "sparkling water" instead of "gasyy water". Or the negative, depressing emotions we feel when "death" is mentioned that cause us to say "pro-choice" instead of "pro-death", because everyone wants "choice"!

16. Weasel Words are (vague) words we use to "weasel" our way out of things or give ourselves "wiggle-room" in uncomfortable situations or when we don't want to give definitive answers and tie ourselves to something. Examples of Weasle Words are "Probably, Maybe, and Kind of".

17. Grammar is the set of rules that governs how we form sentences, the order we place our words in, etc. An example would be that we say "Jason types the paper" not "The paper Jason types" and that we are required to put noun, verb, object in a sentence.

18. Revealing and Concealing can both be results of our use of grammar. If we say "The villages were bombed." instead of "We bombed the villages." it conceals the party accontable/responsible for the action and thus makes it sound almost like a natural disaster, a random tragedy that ocurred on its own.

Language Notes 12-18-08

Please post the following definitions by December 23. In your description of the term, please DEFINE it and the provide an EXAMPLE from class.

1. The Three Components of Language are 1) governing rules (i.e. grammar -punctuation/noun before verb- or vocabulary),
2) intention (not just unintentional communication such as yawning without realizing it), and 3) open-endedness and
creativity (words can be changed or created, such as Shakespeare's "obscene").

Theories of Meaning
2. Definition Theory
By defining something in words, such as a trangle, you should be able to distinguish it from anything else and/or draw it (like the triangle-the way it is defined, it could not possibly be drawn as anything else).
3. Denotation Theory
Drawing meaning from a meaningless word, usually based on context. An example of this is "France", just a meaningless assembly of letters or sounds, but from it we denote 'a country in western Europe between Spain and Germany on the Atlantic...'
4. Image Theory
There is a mental image brought to mind for each word, but some do not create a specific image if they are vague words or words that don't have tanglibe meanings, such as "freedom" or even "tree" - there is not really one specific image that most people's minds create upon hearing those words.

Problems with Language
5. Vagueness
The quality of a word which has no precise meaning, but is useful since we don't usually NEED to know all the specifics to get through the day (i.e. "slow").
6. Ambiguity
A word or phrase can have more than one meaning (i.e. "plane" or "mean").

7. Secondary Meaning (i.e. Denotation, Connotation and Euphemisms)
Denotation is the primary meaning of a word such as "death"="non-living".
Connotation is the web of associations and/or emotions that surround a word such as the sadness, anger, grief, and fear that we naturally feel when the word "death" is mentioned.
Euphemisms are words or phrases used in place of words with harsh negative connotations, such as how we say "passed on" instead of "died" to soften the blow.
8. Metaphor
A direct comparison of 2 words without using "like" or "as" such as when you say "Mike is a pillar in the community." (Mike and pillar are being compared but not literally).
9. Irony
Using one word or phrase but meaning another/not "face" meaning. "Great Weather!" could mean 'ugh this weather stinks!'

(I don't think we have gotten this far yet in class)
Problems with Translation
10. Untranslatable Words
11. Idioms

12. Labels
13. Stereotypes
14. Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Emotionally Laden Language
15. Emotive Meaning
16. Weasel Words
17. Grammar
18. Revealing and Concealing

TOK Diving Bell Essay

Knowing as an individual can be distinguished from community
knowledge because it comes from yourSELF and it includes knowledge by
instinct, conviction, etc. Community knowledge consists more of
general theories or perceptions like racism or that racism is wrong,
or what is going on in areas like politics, etc. Bauby attains
individual knowledge through experiences in the hospital and then
retains that with memory. He also gains some knowledge by community,
like in his chapter "Tourists" in which he explains the psychological
groupings in the hospital (the obese patients, the paralytics...) and
how they "interact" with each other (most of the time avoiding
interaction, like when the patients in the gym "stare at the fire
detector" rather than making awkward eye contact with poor paralyzed
Bauby. Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate between our
individual vs. community knowledge because our individual beliefs can
be heavily influenced by community knowledge and beliefs, or we can
subconsciously assume that because WE think something, everyone else
does too (for example, maybe it IS just Bauby who pictures the
hospital split up like that into groups).
Knowing as an individual and knowing as a community are both
valuable ways of gaining knowledge, each with its limitations. Knowing
as an individual has value because it is the only way to gain personal
knowledge, such as knowledge by introspection. A community, as a
whole, cannot feel empathy or sympathy for a specific person or gain
instinctive knowledge such as how to breathe; those are things that
can only be known on a personal level. Personal knowledge of the
individual has the ability to be intrinsic and detailed, and a person
can be very sure in their personal knowledge and feel more certain
about what they know then something they have learned as part of a
community. However, perhaps this is not such a good thing and is more
of a limitation, because if the knower is satisfied and the knowledge
is just thought to be certain, who will challenge it to see if it is
really true and to make it more accurate? This same problem arises,
perhaps more, with knowledge of a community: community knowledge is
rarely challenged since either pretty much everyone belives it so
there is noone to disagree, or the person who thinks otherwise does
not have the courage to confront the whole community. Another weakness
of individual knowledge is that it is only ONE person's perspective
when multiple perspectives may need to be considered, and, as we know,
one person can perceive and interpret things very incorrectly or
heavily (perhaps too heavily) influenced by past experiences and
pre-associations, etc.
Community knowledge is a bunch of people's perspectives together,
which, hopefully, would create a more accurate picture, since claims
could be supported by multiple witnesses and considered by more than
one perspective, etc. However, this strength only goes so far because
it is still only ONE community who could be stuck in THEIR paradigms,
so ultimately, there will always be an element of inaccuracy from lack
of varied perspectives. Community knowledge is more easily shared with
other people/communities since it usually consists more of large ideas
than specific detailed knowledge or feelings of an individual, which,
with the limits of language and sounds, letters, or even words trying
to represent complex emotions and events, can be very difficult to put
into words understandable by another person. Bauby's complicated and
painfully slow method of transcribing words from the blinking of his
one eye is a good example of the language and translation barriers an
individual can face when trying to communicate knowledge. Not only was
he unable to describe things in full length because of the extremely
long time it took to "say" things, but Bauby's words were then
translated from French into English to be in the book, and some
meaning could have ben lost here (in cultural expressions which don't
provide a literal translation, etc.). A strength/limit (depending on
which standpoint you look at it from - the believing community's or
the influenced individual's) of community knowledge is that a big
group of people believing something can have influence on individuals,
such as the Nazis who influenced many many people to think that Jews
were inferior... Community rules, expectations, social groups, ideas
of "polite" behavior and language, etc. also limit the individual in
what they can do and believe ("know") if they really wanted to be
accepted by society, which I think is a natural desire in all of us,
although maybe subconsciously for some.
While I don't think that either knowledge by community or
knowledge as an individual is particularly stronger than the other
(each is better for separate things), I do think that most of the
knowledge we use on a daily basis to get through life is more personal
knowledge, attained solely by US, so individual knowledge could maybe
be considered more useful in day-to-day life than community knowledge
(things more like politics and celebrities than how to make yourself
food to eat).
How much of this knowledge, whether individually gained or
gained by community, depends on interactions with others? It is too
hard for me to put a number or percentage to this, but I would say a
fair amount is gained via interacting with other people. If you lived
on a desert island, all by yourself, how much would you know? Not very
much. Our perception of our world, geography, the existence of people
other than us and the ones directly around us, and so much more, is
all attained by talking with other people, sharing ideas and "putting
our heads together." Knowledge about ourselves is also gained in part
by interacting with others, for example, we can learn about our
patience level, our preferences, things that make us happy or sad or
excited, all from acting and reacting with and to other humans. But we
can also learn quite a lot on our own or by simply observing other
people. If a prep refuses to interact with a group of "nerds", she can
still notice what they wear or eat or talk about. However, observance
without interaction can produce warped views of people; maybe the prep
will think the nerds like being isolated when in reality they're
dieing to belong to a group. Perhaps when Bauby thinks the nurse is
being rough with him because she doesn't care, she is really just
ignorant of how her handholds really feel to him. This is one of the
many problems with knowledge... It can be WRONG!
Whether there is any way to gain knowledge by description and
knowledge by acquaintance without depending on interaction with
others, I suppose, depends on your definition of "interaction".
Knowledge by description, claiming you know something because you can
describe its existence or its properties or whatever, requires the
ability to use language, which I think depends not so much upon
interactions with other people, but upon a person's interactions with
language and their ability to handle it, combined with the properties
of the knowledge being described; if it is the knowledge of how an
emotion feels, it is very difficult to describe in words. Of course,
it helps if there is a another person to describe the knowledge TO,
and perhaps interacting with another person helps the describer come
up with words of description or to realize that the knowledge is not
quite how they thought it was... Knowledge by acquaintance usually
cannot be gained without interaction with others because you can't
really "know someone's nature through experience" if you HAVE no
experience with them, seeing how they react to things you say and
getting used to how they interact with you. However, you can still
gain acquaintance with someone's habits, moods, etc. by simply
watching them. If I watch my mom go through her daily routine singing
and dancing but don't actually say anything or make eye contact with
her, I can still know (as far as one CAN know the true emotions or
someone else) that she is feeling happy. Bauby sometimes interacted
with his nurses, blinking out a message to them and asking them to
close the window, or cooperating (or not) with his speech therapists
and such, but he also just sat and watched them a lot, and this is
mostly how he became "acquainted" with them - observation. In Bauby's
chapter, "At the Wax Museum", he says of his nurses, "I got to know
them better. They carried out as best they could their delicate
mission"(110) and "They readily lapse into their local patois as soon
as they are alone together."(111) Bauby did not gain all this
knowledge by sitting down and having a heart-to-heart chat with each
of the personnel or even by sharing very endearing looks with them -
after all, even his face is paralyzed, and I highly doubt each nurse
gazes thoughtfully into his eyes to decipher his look and then
responds to him...
So I think that neither knowledge by description nor knowledge
by acquaintance really DEPEND on interaction, but it certainly does
aid the gaining of the two.
Once we have gained this "knowledge" through the many ways we attain
information, we have to justify it to ourselves (we would not just
believe that a pink unicorn flew over our heads - what is there to
prove it?), so how do we do that? I think the most powerful way we
justify our knowledge claims is our own empirical sense perception. If
I saw something, "I KNOW I saw it! It was THERE! How could it not be
there if I SAW it and HEARD the noise it made?!" I think humans tend
to forget that our senses and sense perception can be faulty,
especially when pride or belief is a part of the picture; that is one
of the problems of knowledge: our attainment of what we claim to be
"knowledge" can be influnced by various factors and turn out a little
twisted, and we fail to see that. Anyway, in general, I think we
naturally tend to trust ourselves more than others and are more likely
to think THEY made a mistake, because "I KNOW what I saw"... Which is
why I think that our empirical sense perception is more powerful in
our justification of knowledge than, say, "authoritative or divine
revelation". However, if a person is highly religious or has been
trained to, wholeheartedly, in all situations, trust their father or
priest or doctor or whatever, I guess they might believe in knowledge
gained via that authority more so than what they thought they knew
themselves. For example, if a priest claimed to REALLY turn a glass
of wine into the blood of Jesus, and some devout follower drank it,
even though their tongue might have tasted only wine, they could claim
to KNOW it was really blood because their mind was so convinced it
was, that they believed what they were told more than what they
actually personally tasted.
Bauby was only told by his doctors and nurses that the reason he had
a stroke and was paralyzed was because he had locked-in syndrome, so
HE might say that in this case, authoritative revelation is more
powerful than more personal knowledge (such as empirical sense
perception); how could HE know he had locked-in syndrome? However,
BAUBY was the only one who could fully know how it feels to be
paralyzed and have the syndrome. He is the one feeling the drool all
over his cheek and the inability to move his muscles, not the doctors.
So in my mind, Bauby's empirical sense perception has more value and
power than something he knows because the doctor told him.
One might also argue that memory is the most powerful justification
of knowledge because, look at people with Alzheimers - can they really
KNOW much of anything? Almost all of Bauby's knowledge of his past
comes from his memory, so where would he be without that? However, he
did just come out of a coma, so how reliable is his memory for
justifying his knowledge of the past? (In his book The Diving Bell and
the Butterfly, Bauby describes his "Dream" (pages 49-52) or
recollection of events mixed with dreaming that took place while he
was in a coma. It is difficult to decipher which parts of this memory
really occurred and which were created by his imagination.) It could
also be argued that sense perception is not much good if you can't
REMEMBER it 2 minutes later, but I say there isn't too much to
remember if you don't first perceive it with your senses. If you
couldn't see, hear, feel, taste, and smell, and then interpret those
pieces of information (although you COULD interpret them incorrectly),
it would be really hard to tell what was going on.

Diving Bell #5

1. Read The Ladies of Hong Kong. Think of a place you know by smell. Can you adequately describe it? Which situation is more horrific? Bauby's or Jean-Paul K. Please explain your answer.
I know my grandparents' house in Pensylvania partly by the smells that fill it. Downstairs it smells lightly of liquor and cigarettes, but a good cozy smell, not overpowering or disgusting. Upstairs it smells vaguely of mothballs and something else you can't describe; it just smells like my grandparents. And yes, I could describe a million things about their house, but it is partly the memories that have been made there and my infatuation with objects and such when I was a young girl that make these things stand out so clearly in my mind. The way their house used to be (they recently renevated it), you would walk in a small office and down through a little hallway with a fridge and a beer/wine cooler along the sides. Then you enter their kitchen, dining area, and living room, big open spaces that look very distinguished, not unlike my grandparents themselves. Outside is a whole other story that would take a while to fully describe, but I definitely have specific memories of that place.
I would say Bauby's situation is more horrific because at least Jean-Paul K. got OUT of his situation, but Bauby's is permanent. He cannot speak, or walk, or more, or even express himself more than slowlyyyy with words, and he will never get much better than that.

2. After reading Wax Museum, why do you think Bauby is "fond of all these torturers"?
He is fond of all his nurses and orderlies because even though some are rough with him or indifferent or whatever, he realizes that they are all just trying "to ease our burden a little when our crosses bruised our shoulders too painfully." I think seeing these people every day, all the different types with the different personalities and different roles, is very interesting for Bauby. He notices a lot about people and their habits and ways, and studying all his "torturers" gives him something to do all day. Plus, they are something of familiarity for him, he sees them everyday, and they are the ones taking care of him, doing things for him, and helping him - even if maybe not to the extent or in the way that he would most greatly appreciate.

3. Read The Mythmaker and explain why you think Bauby has admiration for Olivier. What is the connection between memory and emotion?
Bauby had an admiration for Olivier because he had a talent for making up incredulous stories, having lots of fun doing it, and letting himself go from real-life boring life, and then defending them so adamantly, unashamed of his imaginative stories. Bauby wishes so bad he could do that with his little "butterfly", stuck inside his diving bell day after day.
Current emotion can effect the way we remember things, for instance if we are really nervous or distressed, we can not remember events as clearly or accurately as when we are calm and collected. Or if we angry, our memory of a frustrating day can be exaggerated and seem much worse. Memory can also affect our emotions, for example if I am feeling very happy and then I see a spot where I remember having a very bad experience, my mood can be turned around and I will feel very sad.

4. Why do you think Bauby likes the song A Day in the Life? Why do humans always wait for life's crescendo? Why do you think he places this chapter towards the end of the book?
I think he likes the song because not only is it interesting to listen to because it is very calming and then very exhilarating in its crescendo, but it relates to his life in that his life came to a big crescendo when he had his stroke, and then crashed down, just like the instruments in the song, so in a way it's like telling the story of his stroke.
I do not think humans wait for "life's crescendo" because I don't really think life has one crescendo or that people view life that way, but I do think they (we) wait for better times, that we keep hoping that things will get better and more exciting than they are and that opportunities will arise for us if we wait for them. We always wait for the best parts of our lives because we enjoy the natural high we get when we feel like things are going well, and when we experience anything less than that we keep hoping for more. It's what keeps us alive, or I'm sure we all would have given up the will to live by now.
Bauby said he kept putting off this part of his story; he probably had a really hard time accepting what had happened to him and that it had led to his current, permanent stage of horror, so he was not really sure enough or emotionally stable enough to remember all that had happened to him, especially right after he had just gotten out of a coma and his mind was all foggy. I also think he would not want to put it in words, his falling into a barely-human state because of a horrendous sudden stroke, because then it would seem so much more like reality, no longer like a dream he might wake up from. But he must have decided it was important, to clarify for the reader (and for himself) what had really happened that fateful day and to let out his memory, probably one that had been plagueing him since he woke up out of his coma. If he had placed this chapter near the beginning, I think the reader would have been less intrigued, and not have gotten to experience the sense of confusion and disorder that was going on in Bauby's mind once awakened from his deep sleep.

5. Read Season of Renewal. Why is he savoring the last week of August? Is there something we can learn from him beause of his reaction to the end of vacation?
He is savoring the last week of August because "for the first time in a long while, [he doesn't] have that awful sense of a countdown" - the countdown till fall. I think he was so eager for fall to come because he hated knowing it was summer and everyone else was out there freed from work and school and having fun DOING things, and he was still stuck in his bed unable to move. I think this teaches us that he is only human, not liking the feeling of being left out while everyone else is on vacation and he is just bored, all alone... Now he won't feel quite so alienated and different than everyone else in the world.

Diving Bell #4

1. After reading Vegetable, respond to Bauby's statement: "I belonged on a vegetable stall and not the human race." Why do you think it is necessary for humans to put people into categories? Is our language so limiting in describing the world that we need a way to organize our thoughts?
The human race is typically characterized by developed thinking, emotions, and action. Giving someone a hug, laughing, talking... If you can't do all this, you "don't belong to the human race" and you are thought of as something else, a "vegetable".
I think it is necessary for humans to place people in categories because this is how our brain works: "I am like these people, I am NOT like THESE people, so I belong HERE." And that is how we know that WE are not "vegetables". I am a teenager, I am a Sturgis student, I am... whatever I happen to categorize myself as at that specific moment so that I know what role to play, how to act, etc. And we know who we can talk to and who we can not, for example, if there are people grouped as "nerds" in the cafeteria, and one wants to be seen as "cool", one cannot talk to the "nerds".
Yes, I think language does limit us, but THAT is not WHY we need a way to organize our thoughts - our limited language is one of the many ways we attempt TO organize our thoughts, it just needs some help sometimes. Plus-I'm not sure how to phrase this- some things simply aren't thought of with words in our minds, like groups of people can be more of an idea or an image.

2. Bauby claims that, "Capturing the moment, these small slices of life...I hoard all these letters like treaure." What do you hoard and why?
I tend to hoard, mentally, memories of moments in time when I did things with people I love, a hug, a conversation, etc., maybe even only a dream I had about them. I write a lot of these things down in a sort of diary so I won't forget these moments of bliss, so I can look back at them later and smile and wish I was right back in that moment... I hold onto these moments because I like to feel acceptance and to share things with people, a look, a touch, a connection. I value them... What if the person died or went away or... I need these moments of life and joy to hang onto.

3. Read Outing and respond to Bauby's statement: "I know who he is, but who is he really?" Is he getting any closer to understanding what makes people tick? Also, why will Bauby never tire of the smell of French Fries?
Bauby knows who "Fangio" IS, he is the guy from the hospital who can't sit... But Bauby doesn't know what kind of person the man is or what his job was or how he used to be - Bauby had just finished talking about how people don't know how HE was before the accident happened, the editor of the Elle, etc.
Bauby is discovering certain things about what makes people the way they are: perhaps the reason people like him, paralyzed or severely disabled, are not all full of smiles is that we don't understand how frustrating and depressing it is to have to sit all day without moving, barely (but painfully and SLOWLY) communicating with others, and being perceived as a pitiable lump, a "vegetable". He is also discovering firsthand the way people separate themselves from other categories of people, such as the still-mobile patients in the gym who turn away from Bauby on his board to "stare at the fire detector" or the way the hospital is mentally divided between the groups of obese people, old people, paralyzed people... Humans feel uncomfortable when presented with other people that are very unfamiliar to them or more misfortunate than them because they do not quite know how to react to a different situation than they are used to. We like our comfort zones.
Bauby will never tire of the smell of French fries because olfactory sense memory is the strongest to conjure images and memories, so he probably has pleasant memories of his childhood or something when he smells the fries. ( I don't remember his mentioning fries before/after to explain why they would be specifically important to him...). Bauby cannot eat real food through his mouth, so potent food smells to him are probably very valuable because he loves food but cannot eat it, so at least he can smell it.

4. Read Twenty to One. Bauby claims that, "the memory of that event has only come back to me now, now doubly painful: regret for a vanished past and, above all, remorse for lost opportunities." Do you ever look back on something in your life as a "small near miss"? Is it ever beneficial to have regrets?
I definitely think back on times when I should have done something, or moments when I wish I had taken an opportunity, or just acted differently. Sometimes I say something to a friend or family member that later I really wish I hadn't, or I don't give someone a compliment because I'm too scared or just think it doesn't matter, to find out later that they were having a crummy day and would have loved a compliment...
I think it can be beneficial to have SOME regrets because it teaches you (hopefully) not to make those mistakes again in the future. For example, if I tell my friend the truth about what I think she is wearing, and then later regret saying that because it did not do good for our relationship, then I will probably NOT say something like that next time. However, we cannot control the past, and if we focus too much on our past failings and missed opportunities, it will do us no good and our hearts/minds will not thrive. So we should consider our regrets and learn from them, but now dwell on them like a cancer.

5. Read Duck Hunt and explain what Bauby means by the statement: "I must have butterfly hearing."
He tunes in specifically on the sounds of the"butterflies" flapping their wings; what he is really doing is training himself to let go of the situation and his current circumstances, and focus on good happy thoughts of freedom, to let his imagination run away. He needs to do this because otherwise he will sink under the depression of his "diving bell" and he will go insane.

6. Read Sunday. Why do you think Bauby dreads this day?
There is noone in the hospital to talk to him and cheer him up and distract him from his oppressive "diving bell" and he feels very lonely and bored on Sundays. He LIKES communication and talking to people, using his brain (and his (one eyelid), and when he cannot do that for a whole day, he dreads it.

Diving Bell #3

1. What is significant about the last line in Guardian Angel?
Bauby's sentence "And I have to admit that at times I do not know anymore." is very sad because it shows how lost and helpless he feels. He feels like he is wasting away, he cannot move, he cannot talk... It is like he is barely even human anymore since he cannot do all the things a normal human can and even has a pretty horrifying unnatural appearance. He cannot make any noise or really do anything to announce his existence and presence in the world, and he must wonder how much of him is really "there" anymore... Will he be able to stay the same person or will he lose all hope and lose himself to this terrible disease?

2. What is ironic about the photograph he recieves from his father in The Photo?
The photo of him at the mini-golf course seems ironic to me because it depicts him when he was young and mobile, spending a spring with his family and having fun. And now he is stuck, unable to move, in a hospital, feeling much like his very old father who cannot move from his apartment on his old legs. Also, the "not very sparkling seaside town" he mentions reminds me of the hospital he is at, which probably seems rather drab to poor Bauby.

3. Do Bauby's dreams give us any insight into his condition? Be specific.
Bauby's dream seems a large part like reality, like in his coma he is slightly aware (i think highly aware in some parts) of what is going on around him, and his brain just took that and added some extra details and creative twists. When Bauby says they were "numb with cold", mentions "electric shock" and says "rows of plastic tubes dangle floorward like oxygen masks", "Karadzic performs a tracheotomy upon me on a hastily cleared table", and describes the fluid flowing into his mouth and his inability to move and escape, he is describing things that most likely were going on in the hospital - he did have a tracheotomy and a feeding tube and he really could not move or get up from hid bed. When he says "paralyzed by a general strike"(49) it even sounds like "paralyzed by a stroke" which Bauby probably heard at one or several points during his time in a coma. So I think he was largely conscious during his coma and that his mental faculties were still functioning and perceiving information, just not quite putting them together right.

4. Where is Bauby's butterfly in My Lucky Day?
Bauby says "Awaiting rescue, I hum an old song by Henri Salvador: 'Don't you fret, baby, it'll be alright.'" His butterfly is out somewhere happy, getting help. He is imagining it is ok and he will be fine. Everything is just fine.

5. After reading Our Very Own Madonna and Through a Glass, Darkly, Bauby seems to have regrets about not appreciating small moments from his earlier life. Can you think of a moment from your own life that you did not truly appreciate until it was over? How can we learn to live so that we appreciate significant moments. Is this even possible?
When the German students came in October, I did not really do that much with them, and at the farewell party we had for them, I did not really spend a lot of time with the German kids I was the closest to, and after they left, I really wished I had, and the moments I DID spend with them, I really remember and treasure. When a group of us went to see High School Musical we had so much fun and were being so silly, and now I really miss that, especially because most of my American friends are not quite like that. I think we can learn to live slightly more appreciative of the moments we have in life if we think about what our life would be like without those moments, and attain a constant mentality of seeking joy in little things and not taking them for granted. However, I think it is kind of human nature to "live in the moment" and not think about how much you will miss these things in the future... I guess it would depend on the individual and their skill in adapting their mindset if it would be possible to appreciate significant moments more.

The White Man's Burden

Please take a few moments and comment on the film we saw in class. In particular, did any part of the film make you 'think twice'? Please explain your answer.

The movie we watched was kind of strange for me to watch because I am so used to seeing pretty much only white people with a few black people here and there, since we don't have much diversity or variety on Cape or even really in most of the movies we see. It wasn't so much that it was black people holding the higher positions and the white family being the poor one in the movie that was strange for me, it was more of the everywhere-I-look black people that caught my attention. The only movies I have seen with that really large ratio of black people to white people are like comedy shows or movies like Medea's Family Reunion.
I also experience this kind of subconscious ___ (I don't know what word to put here, but like Being Caught by things that are different or unfamiliar) when I watch Asian movies or whatever, but what is weird is that I don't usually notice (as much) when there is one or maybe a few people that are not white in a film that is mostly whites... I think it is just weird for me if in a movie there are not a lot of white people because that ia what I see every day, and if there are only a few of them, it's like where's the rest??

Diving Bell #2

1. What do you think of Bauby's line in Bathtime when he states, "But I see in the clothing a symbol of continuing life. And proof that I still want to be myself. If I must drool, I may as well drool on cashmere."
I think it is kind of sad that these are his only options and that he does have to drool... But I see what he means when he wants to be in his own clothes and still be "himself". Why should a disease/disability make you into a new person? He still thinks the same way and is the same person, so he should get to wear his own clothes that HE likes and feels comfortable in. I know I would rather wear my clothes than some generic jogging suit given to me by the place I most dread.

2. Considering how Bauby wrote the book, does it matter that he happened to speak French? How would have the writing of the book been different if he spoke Japanese or Chinese?
I think his speaking French does not really matter in terms of how the book turned out, but it mattered in the writing of the book. Words and ideas are generally the same in each language (a house is still a house no matter what language you say the word in) as far as I know, but certain languages use more letters or words to communicate different ideas, etc, so I am sure it would have taken more/less time if it was in another language since the translator or scribe for Bauby had to read out each letter of the alphabet, and it would take a lot longer if you had to go through ALL the hundreds of characters in the Japanese/Chinese languages for each word/letter.

3. Why does Bauby find his appearance humorous?
In a way he FORCES himself to think his damaged, dilapidated appearance is humorous because he is slightly overwhelmed by all the blows he has been dealt by fate; he was "exiled, paralyzed, mute, half deaf, deprived of all pleasures, and reduced to the existence of a jellyfish" and now he is also "horrible to behold." It is "comical" that on top of all his disabilities, he looks completely hideous, barely even human, and has no dignity left. What else can he do but laugh? That is the human's nervous mechanism.

4. After reading the Chapter, Cinecitta, think of a place where, if given one last opportunity, you could spend an afternoon. Why did you choose this place? Please describe it in detail.
Despite the awful, much over-used cliche of the beach, I would spend my day at the beach if I had the choice. Actually probably my evening, because I love the beach around sunset and afterwards, when it gets dark and the lights from far away houses reflects on the water. It doesn't matter much to me WHICH beach it would be, just a place where there is lots of sky and sand and open ocean. I love the feeling of freedom I get when at the beach; I am no longer surrounded by houses and trees blocking my view, and the world is layed out for me to behold. It is calming and peaceful (when I am alone, not amidst a crown of tourists), and I can run all over the place or swim or shout or throw things... I can hear the sound of the waves and smell the salty air, feel the wind against my skin and through my hair, and of course look at the beautiful scenery. It is a place that I can think, and I am empowered with possibilities yet overwhelmed by the huge world around me.

5. After reading Tourists, please think of why we don't make more of an effort to connect with those that might look or act different than us.
I think this partially goes back to how humans are obsessed with familiarity, perhaps subconsciously, but if we are not familiar with seeing "messed up" people or people simply different than us -what we are used to- it makes us uncomfortable. We do not quite know how to act around people who are not like us because maybe we feel that we don't have anything in common with them or won't be able to connect with them. It can also be an awkward situation if, like in his story, you are a more fortunate "patient" or person and feel like maybe you will just rub it in their faces if you talk to them.

6. Read Sausage and then consider the following: if you couldn't eat again, what meal would you miss the most? Please describe what it looks and tastes like.
This is a very hard choice for me because I love a variety of foods and not really one in particular. I guess though, Bauby's sausage is my chicken... I love chicken, cooked in a variety of ways: marinated and grilled, in soup, cooked and put over rice with sauce and vegetables... I love my mom's cooking (mostly because she has learned to cook what I like), and if I could never eat again, I would miss all her meals so much, one of them being Chicken Primavera - rice with chicken, cream of chicken sauce, and chopped vegetables (this looks creamy and steamy and delicious). However, I would also dearly miss pasta (in Many forms), the scallion pancakes from Chinese food restaurants, and ice cream, just to name a few.

a) What is 'Locked-in syndrome'? Why would one consider Bauby's condition a prison? What is the significance of The Butterfly?
b) What was Bauby's "frightening truth'?
c) In your opinion, how do you think Bauby should measure progress? Why do you think Bauby ends the chapter "Prayer" with the phrase, "I set out for the kingdom of slumber with this wonderful talisman, which shields me from all harm."

A) "Locked-in syndrome" is when, "paralyzed from head to toe, the patient, his mind intact, is imprisoned inside his own body, unable to speak or move."(4) Bauby's condition could be considered a prison because he is imprisoned in his body, or his hospital room, or wherever others decide to place him. He has no control over what he does or how he moves, and all his natural freedoms have been stripped from him; he cannot speak, walk around, etc. The butterfly he mentions when describing how his mind takes off signifies the only freedom and joy he can have. Paralyzed, his mind is the only thing that can move around and go places on its own, and his takes off like a butterfly to amuse himself. His thoughts roam to different places and adventures, to books that he is thinking up.. it flies away.
B) While Bauby's "frightening truth" in his book was very unclear to me (he claims it hit him, but then I didn't catch the part where he really explains what the truth IS), I believe he meant the fact that he would be stuck in a wheelchair... for at least a very long time. After going through the big ordeal of dressing him, pushing him around in the wheelchair, undressing him and laying him back down, after everyone leaves and the wheelchair sits ominously by itself in the corner, Bauby comes to the realization that that is his fate, being wheeled around in an uncomfortable chair like the invalid he is. He isn't going to magically be able to walk again or be able to actually go the places his mind wanders to, assuming his clumsy wheelchair is not capable of flying...
C) I think Bauby should measure progress, since it's obviously not going to take place quickly, by how much he can move in the small things, or make some sort of noise, moving towards speech. If he tries to measure himself on too large a scale, like wanting to walk or talk completely, he will get discouraged when he cannot achieve those things quickly.
In his ending chapter of "Prayer" Bauby means that he went to sleep with the protection of God invoked by the prayers of his daughter, Celeste. I think he is probably so grateful for her thoughts and the comfort it brings him to know that she and her God are thinking of him and trying to help him. He needs that hope to cling onto, the belief that he is safe and taken care of, "shielded from all harm", so that he can survive and keep going.

Man Is The Measure: The Task of Perception

1. According to Abel, "Perception is active inquiry, not passive reception."(34) It is questioning and interpreting what you sense, not just simply sensing it.
2. By "seeing as" Abel means that "seeing" is more complicated than just receiving an image in your eyes and brain... You have to see that image AS something, interpret what it is, and this is what leads to doubt about what people think they see (Abel uses the example of astronomers not knowing for years whether or not they were seeing canals on Mars). Different people can see things as different things or in different ways.
3. "To see what is the case requires context, inference, concepts, experience, interpretation."(35) Context is the circumstances or situation in which you see something, which can help you "see as". Inference is deriving a conclusion from facts or premises. Concepts are general ideas or understandings, especially ones derived from specific instances or occurrences. Experience is apprehension or perception... through the senses or mind; active participation in events or activities, leading to accumulation of knowledge or skill. Interpretation is the explanation to oneself of the meaning of something.
4. Nietzsche means that the fault of perception is that it is individual interpretation; most of the time there is no "correct" perception of something: there IS no perfect perception, and everyone has their own separate one. Jastrow showed this in his drawing of a rabbit/duck which can be "correctly" seen as either a rabbit OR a duck, not just one. We did something similar in class when we took the perception test and counted the number of cubes displayed in a drawing on the screen, for which there were 2 "correct" answers.
5. When Abel writes "There is no sharp line dividing perception and illusion" he means that both perception and illusion are ambiguous, they are "not always evident in an image, and cannot always be isolated."(36) Neither one is clearly defined or can be verified as true or false. How do we know the way we perceive things isn't just an illusion?
6. The reason perception is selective by nature is that we receive more images and pieces of information from our senses than we can handle and make sense of, so we pick and choose which ones to think about. And our brains usually receive "what we expect, or want, or believe, or are used to."(36) We cannot focus on and interpret everything, so we focus on the ones most familiar to us and interpret them accordingly.
7. When he says "to perceive is to solve a problem" Abel means the problem of how we see things, how we determine what they are and come to an agreement within ourselves. Nothing is "clearly" defined when we sense it, we have to give it definition and decide what it means based on our past experiences, context, etc... And how will we do that? How will each of us interpret an image? This problem is solved by personal perception. It is what you make it, life is how you see it.
8. Social conditioning, the "natural" views of a society and the "natural" ways in which they see things, think about things, and draw things, is important in determining how things "naturally look" for individuals because if you are trained by your society to think of things and see things a certain way, what is familiar to you will feel "natural".
9. The Durer rhinoceros story is significant because it shows human tendency to represent things according to tradition or as one THINKS an object should be. Never having seen a rhinoceros, Durer made a "woodcut" of one based solely on second-hand evidence and his imagination. Apparently his representation was not very accurate but Bruce, criticizing it, drew an illustration of a rhino from life that was strongly (probably subconsciously) influenced by his IDEA of what a rhino SHOULD look like. The influence of convention was demonstrated in the showing of photographs to tribesmen who, confused, viewed the pictures only as "meaningless arrangements[s] of varying shades of grey on a piece of paper." If they are not used to an object or scene being depicted in 2D form on paper, it would not mean anything to them besides marks on a paper. It is not the real house, I can't go inside it, so why should I think it's a house?
10. Perspective drawing is influenced by convention because an artist will draw distance or location of objects or something, based on what their society/their brain tells them it should look like... It is not just SEE, DRAW; it is see, try to represent according to the conventions that you have been taught. If distance means less bright colors, that's how it is drawn, not necessarily the way your eyes are actually taking the picture in.
11. Abel means that if you believe something, you can actually "see" it... your mind will literally think it saw the thing you perceived. You become so convinced that you.. see it. In social sciences, tests with people watching a fixed candle flame have reported to see it moving because they have been convinced prior to this that it is moving. In the natural sciences, astronomers have failed to notice that they were seeing a planet which they refused to believe existed... Because these people BELIEVED something, they actually saw it (or didn't see it, respectively).
12. "Hearing as" is receiving auditory information which we then interpret and add to/take away so that it makes sense to our brain and the way we perceive how language is SUPPOSED to be and sound. For example, if we hear the word "we" instead of the word "me" but our brain knows what it is supposed to be in context, out brain will probably 'correct' it so that we think we do hear it AS "me" and we don't even notice the error.

blink #1 (continued)

5. Why, according to Gladwell, did he become mortified upon completion of the first part of the IAT test on race?  What occurred on the second part of the IAT test?
Gladwell said that in part one of the test, when he had to match faces and words with categories of race and good/bad, he had a hard time putting "glorious" with "good" when "good" was in the "African American" column or "evil" with "bad" when "bad" was paired with "European American". He was mortified that he had to think so much about this and obviously had a strong pro-white association. On the second part of the test, the category pairings were switched, so that "European American" was with "good" and "African American" with "bad". This time, Gladwell had "no trouble at all" pairing the words.

6. Did it make any difference how many times Gladwell took the test?  What does the author believe is the reason for our answers on the IAT (i.e. what does the IAT measure)?
It did NOT make any difference how many times Gladwell took the test, he could not score better. He believes that our answers, which take longer to complete when "African American" is paired with "good", measures our "unconscious attitudes" and "immediate, automatic associations". We have pre-formed associations built into out brains by society, our experiences, the media, etc. and that is why we do not score well on this test, not because we are really RACIST.

7. If Gladwell is correct, that your unconscious acts as a computer that “crunches all the data” from our lives and “it forms an opinion”; would you consider this to your true self?  Please explain your answer.
To some extent I agree with Gladwell as applies to my own life, but I must say, I can't fully be sure because the subconscious associations and opinions Gladwell is talking about, if I make them, I do not really KNOW I am making them. However, I have noticed that sometimes I will catch myself making pre-judgements, and I am pretty shocked because "within myself" I believe all races and genders are equal and that judgements, pre-associations/generalizations without good reasoning should not be made. Yet, because I have seen so many films with black "gangstas" and such, I live in an area with a high concentration of whites and not much else, etc. I find myself more prone to be think a white person attractive than a black one. Gladwell's theory of course pertains to other areas in my life besides racial associations... Associating women with household duties and a mother role, teenage boys with laziness... only a few of the things that plague my daily subconscious judgements...

8. Does Gladwell feel that it matters if one has a “strongly pro-white pattern of associations?”
He says it does not matter in the sense that it does not deem you RACIST or hateful or a bad person or anything, but it kind of matters in the sense that it can affect the way things work in the world, for example, Gladwell says "if you have a strongly pro-white pattern of associations... that will affect the way you behave in the presence of a black person."

9. How does the Warren Harding error impact the business world?
Subconsciously, people tend to assume that because a a person is a man, tall, good/strong-looking, etc, he is more fit for the job or is more reliable. Thus they will be less likely to hire a woman, a black person, a fat person, or a short person, because of these previously formed associations. This can lead to a certain group of people, say, tall, white men, getting most of the jobs/positions/respect or whatever.

10. How does Bob Golomb’s strategy defeat the Warren Harding error?
According to Gladwell, Golomb is an expert at thin-slicing; he reads customers in moments and figures out what they are going through, how they are feeling, and how he should treat them accordingly. His two rules are to "take care of the customer" and to treat everyone like they have the same chance of buying a car, whether they are black, white, male, female, old, young... They could all buy a car today, so be polite and treat them nice. Take care of them. This is precisely what Golomb does, he does not prejudge people because he knows that prejudgements can be very wrong and people can surprise you and end up buying a car when you thought they looked to poor, etc. People love Golomb and are much more likely to buy a car from someone who treats them with respect and not just like a stupid customer to pull money out of.

11. What were the results of the Ayres study?  What does Gladwell believe to be the explanation for these results?
The results of the study, in which each person on the "team" appeared equal and said and did the same exact things, were that white men were offered the lowest prices on cars, white women the second least, then black women, and finally black men with the highest offers on car prices. Gladwell believes that extreme racism or even a conscious decision to label the blacks/women as "lay-downs" was NOT the cause of these results but rather that it was the unconscious associations between women and minorities and "lay-downs" instilled by society, past experiences, what other car sellers have said, etc. that caused them to notice the biggest facts about these customers, race and gender, and make that slip-second link.

12. How does Gladwell believe you can change your score on the race IAT?  How, according to Gladwell, can we apply this rule to our everyday lives?  Do you agree?
Gladwell believes that we can better our score by reading/hearing about black people doing good things, like Martin Luther King, right before taking the test, and then we will have an easier time associating good things with black people. He thinks that we can apply this to our lives by exposing ourselves on a regular basis to minorities and "the best of their culture" so that we are familiar and comfortable with them and prevent our natural hesitation and discomfort towards unfamiliar things. I agree, in theory at least (I have not had much experience actually USING this technique, so I cannot really speak for its effectiveness), that this would help with our thin-slicing problem. For example, before participating in Operation Smile in Honduras, I viewed several pictures of children with cleft pallets, and learned some about it. I think this helped me not to be so shocked when I arrived and saw all these disfigured children who look so different than the privledged, healthy kids I am used to seeing.

Blink 2

Read Pages 67-85: The Chapter entitled, Seven Seconds in The Bronx.
Then, go through each section and explain how it applies to our study of Perception. Just write 2-3 sentences and be sure to provide a quote to support your argument.

1.Three Fatal Mistakes
This chapter talks about 3 officers thin-slicing a black man in the Bronx. They made several split-second judgements without reason that were big mistakes- Gladwell says "Carroll sized him up and in that instant decided he looked suspicious."(69). We have been studying how people make split-second judgements based on past experiences and pre-associations, and this is what these policemen did.

2. The Theory of Mind Reading
In this chapter, there is a professor who can read people's faces, their wrinkles, bumps and uses of certain facial muscles, to tell how they are feeling, what they are thinking, and occasionally even what kind of person they are. "Tomkins believed that faces... held valuable clues to inner emotions and motivations."(70) We talked a bit in class about how in knowledge by acquaintance relies partially on reading someone's facial/body language over periods of time, again and again, to be acquainted with them, their moods, and their reactions. Our perceptions of people's moods and personalities are in part formed by what they communicate with their faces.

3. The naked Face
This section explains how there are voluntary and involuntary facial expressions that we make, some so microscopic they can be detected "only if electrical sensors are attached to the face. But it's always there."(74). It also describes the tests that have been done to form the theory that emotions can start FROM the face, not just be reflected in it. We discussed this possibility in class, and it goes back to our perception of things that are going on (how our emotions make us perceive things in different ways) and how maybe there are other things that can affect our perception, like what we are doing with our face.

4. A Man, A Woman and a Lightswitch
This chapter tells of how an autistic person perceives things; they see people just as other objects, no more important than a lightswitch. "because he lacks one very basic ability - the ability to mind-read - he can... come to a conclusion that is socially completely and catastrophically wrong."(77) We need this ability to "mind-read" to be able to tell people's feelings and emotions, and a number of other things...

5. Arguing with a Dog
Our senses of perception can be altered or narrowed in certain conditions. One police officer said of himself during a shooting:"I didn't hear a thing, not one thing. Alan had fired one round when I shot my first pair, but I didn't hear him shoot.... I don't even remember pushing myself up."(78). Your body can narrow your senses to deal with the threat or stressing thing in front of you, which can be good, but if it goes too much, than bad things start happening, your brain can partially shut down, you can be mind-blind, etc. They describe trying to talk to an extremely frightened person like trying to argue with a dog, because they don't have the full use of a normal human brain.

6. Running Out of White Space
On page 80 it says "'When you remove time'...'you are subject to the lowest-quality intuitive reaction.'" This relates to the IAT test and how, because you are forced to make decisions in a fraction of a second, you are more likely to fall prey to prior associations and worse judgements.

7. Something Told Me...
We talked some in class about whether or not our mind-reading skills can be improved and if we can escape the typical mistakes of jumping to conclusions based on those wrong judgements. This chapter talks about that as well, and they argue that we CAN improve on this by preparing ourselves with "training" to respond to high stress situations calmly and be able to think through things in our brains in a matter of seconds. "look at how the officer's experience and skill allowed him to stretch out that fraction of time, to slow the situation down, to keep gathering information until the last possible moment."(84)

8. Tragedy on Wheeler Ave.
The truth about the Diallo incident was that he didn't HAVE a gun and the police officers perceived his WALLET as a gun in their stressed faction-of-a-second decision before they opened fire on Diallo. It says of the police officer, "He's not mind-reading now. He's effectively autistic."(84). Oh, how wrong our perception can be...

Blink #1

Chapter Three: The Warren Harding Error
1. Describe how Warren Harding rose through the Republican Party to become President in 1920.
Harding was a man who got by on his looks, which happened to be very good and get him elected for things simply because he LOOKED like a good representative; "he grew more and more irresistibly distinguished-looking."(27) Through these good looks, the urging of his wife, Florence, and the stage managing of ("scheming") Harry Daugherty "He advanced steadily from local Ohio politics"(27).
2. Why does the author believe that people were in error in promoting Harding to higher office?
"Harding was not a particularly intelligent man. He liked to play poker and golf and to drink, and, most of all, to chase women."(27) Warren Harding was not quite the well-abled gentleman that he "looked" to be... It is probably not such a good idea to elect him to a higher office in running your country. And, he turned out to be one of the worst presidents of America.
3. What was the point of the “Implicit Association Test (IAT)?”
The point of the test is to show us that "We make connections much more quickly between pairs of ideas that are already related in our minds than we do between pairs of ideas that are unfamiliar to us."(29) It shows us our automatic, subconscious preferences and prejudice by administering a few simple tests of placing words and pictures into categories.
4. What are the advantages to completing the IAT on computer?  Why does Gladwell believe the IAT has become “so popular in recent years?”
The computer can measure our time of response down to the millisecond, magnifying our tendency to take longer to associate things we are not familiar with.
Gladwell claims this test has become very popular because it "hits you over the head with its conclusions" and "the effects it is measuring are not subtle"(30). This test clearly demonstrates the effetcs of prior associations in our minds and our ability/speed to overcome them.

Sense Perception Presentation

What were your impressions of the lecture and Test from Dr. Gillian? In your opinion, what should the average person know about how our brain perceives the world? What are the larger implications of this?

The lecture and test from Dr. Gilligan were very interesting and eye-opening in that from them, I realized how much we humans THINK we pick up on things but really don't, etc. When she gave us the perception test, I was kind of shocked about how many things I completely missed, and I wasn't the only one in the class.
I think it is very important to be informed with facts, such as the particlars of the biology of human senses, before we can judge whether certain knowledge can be justified and how. However, after taking this test and learning of the many faults of the human to capture the truth through empiricism (i.e. our brain "corrects" much of what we see/read, etc.) leads to doubting the true justification of any 'truth'. If I didn't even notice that it said "too too" on the sign, how can I be sure that I am ever reading certain things correctly?
On one hand, I think everyone ("the average person") should know the information presented to us by Dr. Gilligan, and more. It is important for us to know how our brain and body really function and produce certain perceptions, which are not always right, such as the tendency of our brain to "fix" things or go towards the familiar. On the other hand, I am pretty sure the average person does not know all this information, but we (the human race) have done pretty well so far... Obviously occasional mistakes are made; Susan thinks she saw Simon murder Raphael, and she was wrong. Those things happen in the court and in life. Maybe we should try to fix or reduce these ocurrences, but as of yet I am not sure how and I have no answer.
I am not sure what the implications question is referring to, but I guess this implies that we need a better system of education around the world to expose our human follies of perceptions, and that we should be careful what we base out justification of truth/knowledge on. Empirical 'knowldge' is not seeming like the most reliable thing after taking that perception test...

"The Mouse Who Ate the Cheese" 10-9-08

1. Bill was sure he KNEW the mouse ate the cheese because he has empirical knowledge of it; he witnessed the act with his own eyes (while he knew he was not drunk, dreaming, or hallucinating). This reason is a good one because empiracal knowledge is considered one of the four justifications of truth; although they can be faulty, they are the closest justifications of truth that we can trust.
2. Their reasons for claiming they knew it was the truth is that it came from a reliable source; they knew Bill and that he was trustworthy and not drunk. I don't think their reasons were quite adequate because, while we know it was the truth, I don't think THEY really can KNOW, because theoretically, Bill could have made a mistake and only THOUGHT he saw the mouse-he may be trustworthy but the human brain and body is not perfect 100% of the time. Virginia and Adrian had no personal connection to what happened and they are putting a large amount of trust in one person (who was bored and could have POSSIBLY imagined it),
3. She could not KNOW a mouse ate the cheese because that is only her guess; she had no personal connection to or evidence of this supposed act. It is not justified, and she knows this, so she only claims belief. Maybe it was giant ants who had come and carried it off instead, how should she know?
4. Yes they all had to believe the mouse ate the cheese because you cannot KNOW something without believing it, and if they claim to KNOW, they must first believe. They had a firm conviction (not the religious kind, i just can't think of the right word) that it happened and they have no doubt about it. You cannot say "I KNOW the car is red" but not believe it... same with the mouse- you got to believe before you can know.
5. George obviously could not KNOW the mouse ate the cheese because he does not believe it. He does not believe it because he has so convinced himself, as have the authorative terminators, that there could not POSSIBLY be mice in the flat. He can not even comprehend it because this is what he has been believing, and he can't get out of the state of mind that THERE ARE NO MICE HERE. I think even if he SAW the mouse he still might not be convinced because he might brush it off as a trick of the mind, of paranoia or the like. But I think if he TOUCHED the mouse, felt it run over his foot or something, and then heard it gobbling up the cheese with glee he might believe it. Empirical knowledge is often the easiest to trust when one does not trust the judgement of others.
6. Everyone would have KNOWN the mouse ate the cheese if they were all "reasonable" and could comprehend and believe truth when they saw/felt/etc it. Perhaps if Bill had taken a video of the mouse eating the cheese, so that everyone could be sure they were not just hallucinating, they would all know it.

This story shows us that we obtain knowledge in different ways, either by empirical knowledge, rationalism, etc. Since Bill seemed the most firm in his belief and knowledge, to me it seems to show that personal experience is often the most common/accepted way of obtaining knowledge. A problem of knowledge this points out is the possibility for faults in justification of the "truth". For example, George was told by authority (the terminators) that there were no mice, and he knew from that that there were none. However, we do not know if the terminators were correct in their analyzation (at the time, there could have been that mouse there, or not, we don't know.) Virginia and Adrian claim to know the fact because they heard it from a reliable source, but what IF he had been mistaken??

Ch. 2 questions

Man is the Measure by Reuben Abel (1976)
Chapter 2: The Basis of Knowledge
1. How does Bertrand Russell differentiate between “knowledge by acquaintance” and “knowledge by description”? (check out the footnote at bottom of p. 19)
"Acquaintance is direct and immediate; it consists of 'raw feel.'... But acquaintance is knowledge only in a preliminary or inarticulate sense. Organized scientific and philosophic knowledge, by contrast, is knowing that such and such is the case: it is descriptive of fact; it is couched in propositions."(19) Knowledge by description can be described and formally stated/proposed, whereas acquaintance cannot due to its being more of a feeling, not fully explicable to other humans or machines (i.e. computers).
2. How does Abel distinguish between “knowing how” and “knowing that”?
"Knowing how" is basically knowledge by description - it can be articulated in propositions, whereas "knowing how" cannot fully be explained or described. Abel says "One may know how to swim, for example, or how to tie a bowtie, without being able to describe exactly how one does these things" whereas "Knowing how to play tic-tac-toe can be articulated precisely in propositions, and formulated as a computer program."(19).
3. What does he mean when he asks: “can knowing how theoretically always be reduced to knowing that?" What is Abel’s answer?  What do you think?
I think he means: Can things you know HOW to do, personally, always (in theory) be broken down and explained in pieces of information like facts? Is any knowledge truly indescribable, just a feeling...?
Abel's answer to this is "knowing HOW to do these things perhaps cannot be fully specified in propositional knowing THAT."(20). In other words, no not really; some things you know HOW to do can't be effectively broken down into "I know THAT..."s. I agree with him. I know HOW to breathe, I know HOW it feels to be hungry, but as hard as I try, I cannot fully describe these things or explain them into I know THATs.
4. How does language become a problem of knowledge?
"It is apparently not possible to state fully the rules for some ordinary English usages which we all know how to employ, such as the order of adjectives." (20). Things make sense to our brains because we have become acquainted with and familiarized with their usage, and we recognize certain patterns but cannot fully put them into words that can be comprehended by another person. Some rules and patterns of language are like this; we cannot really state them as a clear fact, a "knowing that.." Thus it makes it hard to communicate how to speak a language to other people; foreign people make mistakes all the time because they are not used to these odd things we native speakers know but cannot explain.
5. What do you think William James means when he says: “Life defies our phrases?” He means that life is too big, too full of feelings, emotions, experiences, and things that we don't even have words for, to be smushed into our vocabulary. There are so many things we cannot even begin to describe accurately and fully... If we try to explain all of life with our words, it will defy us with its complexity, mock us with its indescribable richness.
6. What, according to Abel, is the difference between “experience” and “propositional knowledge”?
On page 21 Abel says, "Experience is a very wide philosophical term: it includes everything we do and everything that happens to us; it encompasses sensations and emotions and pains and aesthic experiences and mystical transports." He describes the function of propositional knowledge as being not to duplicate experience or reproduce what occurs, but to describe and explain it. In other words, experience is all the feelings we get going through life, and knowledge is how we explain it; they are not the same thing and "Not every encounter with the world results in knowledge."
7. What are Abel’s Four Conditions for propositional knowledge?  Where have we seen this before?  Why does he add a Fourth Condition?
Propositional knowledge has to a true, justified belief that does not have any evidence which might undermine your belief. We saw the first 3 conditions in class, when discussing Plato's conditions for knowledge (Platonic knowledge must be a true, justified belief). Abel adds a fourth condition because even if we have evidence to justify out belief and make it true, if we also have evidence that says the opposite, how can we be sure of what we know? The opposing evidence undermines and renders useless the evidence we were using to justify our claim.
8. What are Abel’s Nine Good Reasons or Evidence which serve as the Basis of Knowledge?  Please give an example for each that is not in the book!
His 9 Good Reasons are: sense perception, logic, intuition, self-awareness, memory, authority, consensus gentium, revelation, and faith. An example of sense perception is "I know that fire is hot, because I fet it." An example of logic is "I know that gravity exists because I can prove it. When I drop this pen, it falls." An example of intuition is "I know it is wrong to kill or harm others because it feels bad." An example of self-awareness is "I know that I am sad, because I feel it inside." One of memory is "I know she said that because I remember her saying that." An example of knowing things through authority could be "I know the meeting is at 2 because Mr. Heiser said so, and he is in charge of it." An example of consensus gentium is "I know that it is cool to wear jeans, because everybody does it." A revelation could be "I know that I shouldn't worry about my life because God revealed this to me." An example of faith is "I know I am going to Heaven because I ahve faith in God's promises." But Abel really doesn't consider faith an accurate basis for knowledge at all...

Class Notes 9/22/08

1.1 "A Sure Way of Knowing"

Plato: 'knowledge' - had to be able to be described and communicated. CERTAINTY.
-has to be reasonable and convincing -> "Flying pig" example is NOT knowledge
"Platonic knowledge"/"knowledge by description"/"propositional knowledge"/"knowing that..." -> formal statement of convincing knowledge.
Academic Knowledge! ex: The world is round. Hitler came to power in 1933.

Platonic Knowledge must must pass 3 tests (conditions):
1. Belief -> this is necessary for knowledge, but not sufficient
2. Truth
A) Public - dog has to be friendly to ALL
B) Independent - separate from belief
C) Must be true NOW & FOREVER ("In the Moment")
3. Justified - Empiricism, Rationalism, Memory, Authority
*EMPIRICISM/experimental learning
-senses: see, smell, taste, hear, touch, feel -> Induction
ex: "I saw my watch say 7:30. The bus arrived. -> The bus arrives at 7:30."
*RATIONALISM/academic knowledge
-instructed using Apriori knowledge ("knowledge that came before")

*Deduction: Go from general theory down to specific

The Trouble With Fries - Gladwell

How would Gladwell respond to the responsibility question from September 15?

Gladwell would say it is definitely McDonald's and the other fast food places' responsibility to make healthier fries and foods which are not such a risk to us human consumers. We are obviously not going to make our own fries (most of us I don't think would really be capable), so we are going to buy theirs. And not only are they cooking these things in horrible transfat-containing oils, but they aren't warning us very clearly about it (there aren't big WARNINGs on fries or anything). McDonald's is choosing the cheaper, easier way out, at the expense of the health of its consumers. Gladwell says "it is clear that fast food needs a second revolution."
In his view, McDonald's and such are making the choice to use these harmful ingredients and cooking techniques, when they COULD be making them much more healthy. It is THEIR fault for our health problems (the ones related to eating fastfood at least). Gladwell says in his article, "Ray Kroc's French fries are killing us. Can fast food be fixed?"
"McDonald's and Burger King and Wendy's have switched to a product, without disclosing its risks, that may cost human lives. What is the difference between this and the kind of thing over which consumers sue companies every day?"
According to Gladwell, it is their responsibility to "fix" the fries, but perhaps it is our responsibility to force them to make that change.

Omnivore's Dimemna

~Did any information in the book come as a surprise to you? If so, why do you think that specific piece of knowledge was kept from you? Does the producer of this knowledge have any responsibility? What is your responsibility as a knower?~

It kind of surprised me to hear that "there are other countries, such as Italy and France, that decide their dinner questions on the basis of such quaint and unscientific criteria as pleasure and tradition, eat all manner of 'unhealthy' foods, and, lo and behold, wind up actually healthier and happier in their eating than we are" because I've always thought of the foreigners who feast upon large amounts of foods we consider fattening, to be... I'm not sure, but not healthier than we are.
I think this knowledge might have been "kept from me" either because of America's tendency to be prideful and not accurately acknowledge other nations' superiorty, or simply because this piece of information was not considered necessary to my general education by my life educators, and I am not one to do research of this type on my own.

I was also really surprised to hear that "There are some forty-five thousand items in the average American supermarket and more than a quarter of them now contain corn." I had no idea there were that many items IN supermarkets, let alone that contain corn... I guess I don't shop much. And I rarely read the ingredients of things because I simply don't think of it, don't specifically care about something, or am too blind to read the typically tiny font in which the ingredients are listed and pretty much hidden.
This information may have been kept from me (and most Americans I would imagine) by supermarkets and by society because they want consumers to keep on buying products despite their unknown ingredients, and make lots of money off using corn as a cheap substitute or general part of foods.

Also, due to my extensive education and many years of research in the field of genetics etc (obviously kidding here), I had no clue that scientists could actually do studies and figure out that "The higher the ratio of carbon 13 to carbon 12 in a person’s flesh, the more corn has been in his diet—or in the diet of the animals he or she ate." Real things like this (assuming this book is correct and so are the scientists performing the mentioned studies) make this whole corn arguement have a little more weight with me...
I don't really feel this information was KEPT from me; just, due to its slight randomness when not conversinmg this specific topic, it was not revealed to me by my parents, teachers, the media, etc. (at least not that I remember).

Pollan, the producer of all this knowledge, or at least the person who revealed it, has some responsibility, yes. He could be considered to be slightly respnsible if, because of reading his book, people started buying more organic/local foods and thinking, shopping and eating differently, and the business of supermarkets and the food business in general, were shifted from its current industrialized, preprocessed state.
My responsibility as a knower is to A) admit that I know (not play Miss Ignorance and turn a blind eye to my own problems or those of the world around me) and B) to, if i care enough about it, do something with the knowlegde I have aquired. If I am worried about my own health I should reasearch more ingredients etc in the foods I buy and choose carefully and knowingly what I put into my body. If I wish the current food situation in supermarkets etc to be changed, I should perhaps buy what I want the demand to be so that they will switch to making THAT the supply (buy more organic foods so they will produce more for growing demand).

How do we know what we know? What evidence do you have to support your claim?

We know what we know from what we are taught and what we learn from our personal experiences in life. Growing up, we are taught much by our parents - through watching their behaviors, interacting with them, hearing their "words of wisdom", etc. We are also taught by our teachers and peers, as well as random people in the community. We learn facts and general knowledge, cause and effect, patterns of life, and more from peoples' verbal instruction, the media... I have the evidence of my personal life as well as my friends' and my parents, and pretty much everyone I know. It's impossible to go through life without learning from other people and thus knowing the things you learn. For example, I was taught by both parents and teachers that 2+2=4. Now I know that, no question about it.
Personal experiences are much the same. We find out things for ourselves in life, and then, we know them. When I spilled hot coffee all down myself as a 6 yr old, it really hurt, and I learned that thats not a safe, good idea and to be more careful.
If you are asking the question how are we sure that we KNOW something, rather than how did we come to know things (learning) , I would say that knowledge is something you can remember over and over again, something you can use in life and something that will affect how you think and act. If you don't actually KNOW something, you obviously won't talk about it, use it to make decisions... And when life's various tests arise to test our knowledge, it will be obvious what we do and don't know. With my 2+2=4 example, if I am given a math test and I can't answer that problem, it is obvious that I don't know it. Or if I don't know that when a person gives you a hug, they usually want some sort of return action- a respnse, and giving back of affection- and someone hugs me and I just stand there, it is quite obviously I am unaware of that social behavior rule.

Do Parents matter?

I was not able to get onto the blog (due to safari failing me each time) and refresh my memory of the exact question, but I read the the article about Judith Harris and her theory that parents don't so much matter in the development of a child, but that their peers matter much more. To the first question asked in TOK, I think she (Harris) would agree that we are our family to some extent because even she admits that our parents pass down genes we cannot escape. However, she feels that we are much more our community, especially the community our age. She would feel that we our much more shaped by our friends and people our age than by our nationality, etc.
I agree somewhat with her, because from personal experience, I can say that for many things, I am much more likely to follow my peers' examples than my parents'. After all, like Harris said, our peers are the new upcoming age; our parents are outdated. However, I do feel that parents are due a BIT more credit for the development of their children than she is giving them. My parents have raised me believing certain things and made me think about certain things. I really believe they have had a big impact on my life and my personality, even if I do not always follow what they wnat, etc.

Q: What were your impressions of the first class? Are we our Name, our Family, our Sex, our Nationality or our Location? If not, then what is responsible for our identity? Do we have an identity apart from our community?
A: My impressions of the first class were very good; I liked the discussion we had and how it got carried out, and it seems like this will be an interesting class for me.
I don't believe we ARE our name etc etc, but that all those things can CONTRIBUTE to who we become (to some undefined and dependent extent). For example, just because of my name, or the fact that I live on Cape Cod, or because of who my family is, that doesn't mean I HAVE TO/ AM going to turn into a certain person or do certain things. BUT because of my specific gender, I have certain hormones which can affect the way i think, feel, and am, etc. And because I have been raised in my specific family, I have been taught and raised to think and act in specific ways. While I can still choose to go against what my family or local community has taught me, all those things have a big impact on my life and who I am as a person. With nationality, it can cause a person to have certain physical traits and appear a certain way, which could lower their self esteem if they don't like their appearance, or could cause others to exhibit racism and prejudice, which couldin turn limit the individual's opportunities and life path. But I think it's a little too forward to say we ARE our nationality.
I think our identity is a result of our genetic makeup, life and the things we encounter, and the individual spirit that was created in each of us.
To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what the question about identity apart from community means, but I'll attept to answer it as best I can. Our community is another factor that shapes who we are, but we are separate from it and can choose to be different if we want to.